Friday, July 15, 2011

Cash for Confession?

‘Cash for Questions’ was the first highly damaging parliamentary scandal of recent years. It concerned MPs accepting bribes from lobbyists to table questions in Parliament, and led to the establishment of the Nolan Committee to review the issue of standards in public life. It all occurred under the premiership of John Major, and brought down a few prominent MPs. The saga morphed into ‘Cash for Honours’ under Tony Blair, when a disturbing correlation was observed between those who were loaning money to the Labour Party and the bestowal of knighthoods and peerages, such that the question ‘Do you want a K or a P?’ was more base than lavatorial. And then we had ‘Cash for Influence’ under Gordon Brown’, when Labour peers were found to be accepting money for helping to amend legislation. The corruption of Parliament reached its zenith (or was it a nadir?) in the ‘Cash for Me’ expenses scandal, though ‘Cash for Access’ is still bubbling away beneath the surface.

As the trial-by-tabloid hounding of the Murdochs continues, there will doubtless be many at The Guardian and the BBC who will be rejoicing at (indeed, stoking) the assault on the world’s largest media empire inclined to the Republican/Conservative worldview. But the euphoria will also be felt in the cloisters of the Church of England: His Grace reported some time ago on the objections of the Bishop of Manchester to the BSkyB takeover, on the grounds of media plurality. His Grace agreed with His Lordship that the vitality and plurality of the media is ‘essential’ for a ‘well informed democracy’. And His Grace further agreed that there is a danger of the ‘exercise of subtle editorial influence’ should BSkyB be taken over completely by News Corp. But His Grace was dumbfounded as to why His Lordship, as the Church of England’s ‘lead media spokesman’, has expressed no such concerns about the BBC, especially when News Corp has just six per cent of news viewers while the BBC attracts 58 per cent.

As the Established Church grapples with the ethical issues raised by its ownership of 344,586 shares in News Corp, worth just under about £3.8 million, the Roman Catholic Church is now becoming embroiled in the saga. Questions have already been asked about Rupert Murdoch’s knighthood, which was apparently bestowed after he donated $10m to help build a cathedral in Los Angeles. His Grace has a slight problem with rewarding those who make donations to the Church, not least because, verily, they have had their reward on earth. But it now appears he wasn’t the only Murdoch to be asked if he wanted a K or a C.

James Murdoch wouldn’t be the first to offer cash for confession: Frank Sinatra famously offered an undisclosed sum for Pope John Paul II to hear his last confession, as though the Mafioso's sins were so unforgivably mortal and pervesely carnal that only the Vicar of Christ himself had the authority on earth to grant absolution. And throughout the ages various salvation packages have been available, at a price, to those who wield temporal power and political authority.

But it is sad that James Murdoch’s six-figure donation ahead of Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK last year is now as tarnished as his father’s ‘K’ and the Church of England’s shares, which must have appeared a jolly sound investment at the time. Rupert Murdoch is not Roman Catholic, which makes his knighthood rather remarkable. Though the fact that his wife, Anna, and son, James, are, certainly helps to explain the very generous donations. But Mr Murdoch Snr is not, unlike Sinatra, trying to circumvent a well-deserved period in Purgatory. Perhaps it is more ‘Cash for Access’ than ‘Cash for Confession’: there was certainly never a question of it being ‘Cash for Influence’ over Canon Law.

While many Roman Catholics are calling for Sir Rupert to be stripped of his knighthood, there is resistance. Dr William Oddie said: "Just cancelling the knighthood simply gives the impression of futile censoriousness.” And the Church of England is also resisting divestment, just in case their Murdoch shares should increase in value over the coming years (ie, when News Corp finally does take over BSkyB).

But there is some bizarre reasoning:

“We'll have to be careful in the future about that particular source of money," said Bishop Kieran Conry of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton. "A conversation needs to take place, discussion needs to take place. It is a public scandal and everyone knows Murdoch's empire is tainted by these revelations."

Francis Davis, a fundraiser for various religious causes, former government adviser and trustee of numerous charities, added: "Given the importance that the English bishops have attached to ethics in business since the banking crisis, it would now be extraordinary if the bishops were not to review the ethical provenance of this donation. And perhaps it raises questions about other donations we don't know about."

How, pray, can one be careful about the morality and ethical provenance of the unknown unknowns? And who has yet made known what is unknown, or professes to know beyond a shadow of doubt what a court of law has yet to make known?

150 Comments:

The curious thing about Murdoch is that I have never heard a respected senior editor say that Murdoch has ever attempted to control their editorial freedom. Patience Wheatcroft said it again this morning.

Of course he is involved in the choice of editors and is unlikely to headhunt from the Guardian, and although his papers have generally taken a rightish view they (the Sun more so than the others) have been more concerned with backing winners than promoting a political ideology.

Politicians know the power of the Sun, with its clever headlines that can influence elections and sway public opinion but in courting Murdoch they are demonstrating their own lack of conviction and not his personal power.

The print media is changing fast and my guess is that the influence of newspapers will eventually fade and then the pressure will be on to allow politically partisan TV networks (like Fox) in this country.

Your Grace, it is time for a debate on the respective qualities of the 'national interest' and 'private interests'.

Note how Dave declared that Rupert Murdoch's decision to withdraw his bid for BSkyB was 'good for the nation'. A very important choice of words. Dave is defining the national interest as an outcome contrary to Murdoch's private interests and pronoucing that 'good'. Ergo, Murdoch and his private interests are 'bad', although this was not said specifically, it is nonetheless implied.

Now His Grace's communicants will all be aware that the great challenge in liberal democracies lies in protecting the individual from the power of the state. It is reasonable for private citizens to assume that the 'national interest' which governs their activities through the executive will be determined in public debate monitored by a free press. Parliament is important in this process, of course.

But look what happened when Dave conferred with Clegg and Milipede. There was no public debate and their meeting took place in a private room with the press being excluded. What emerged from that meeting was a complete reversal of previous public policy targeted at a single personality, Rupert Murdoch. There is no act of parliament, just an agreement to gang-up on Murdoch.

Dave's total cynicsm in this matter is deplorable. He started off on the back foot when his friend Coulson was arrested and has since decided that salvation lies in destroying the private interests of the Murdoch family in the UK. The tool being used is a secret pact with Dave's political opponents in the Labour Party, endorsed by the Lib-Dems. So in order to destroy the private enterprise of the Murdoch family (and shore up the left of centre Coalition with the Lib-Dems at the same time) a Conservative Prime Minister is implicitly defining the 'national interest' as a Conservative alliance with the Labour Party.

The whirring sound, Your Grace, is a large number of former Conservative Prime Ministers (Traitor Heath excepted) spinning in their graves.

Cameron has just acted in a manner which flouts every tenet of democratic governance. All done to save his own skin.

The way to protect individuals from the power of the state, and from the tyranny of the majority, is rights. Yet the concept of rights is not that popular these days, or actually properly understood, after being constantly trashed by much of the newspaper media.

Much of this phoney moral fervour to protect the rights of the individual to privacy is more of an opportunity for politicians to even the score with the media: it is in danger of becoming the smoke screen that they hope will blur the iniquity of the complicity of politicians to side with whomever best serves their own ends.

They may well be patting themselves on the back at ridding themselves of one puppet master - but I doubt that they have suddenly acquired a spine of principal that wont wilt at the next sniff of opportunism.

The Whip System; The Lobby System; Cash for honours; expenses; Corporate schmoozing; overpaid private 'advisors' and 'directorships'; gold-plated pensions and above all treating the public as fools and this Nation's long term future, as their Party plaything.

They will have to address these issues and more before they claw back any credibility from me.

Broadly agreeing with Mr bluedog (12:55) and Mr Dreadnaught (14:48), and adding that Mr Cameron has again been acting in character, as have all the other vocal and posturing M.P.s (would like to know of any exception).

There is no indication that they are well-informed about Mr Murdoch's financial crisis, any more than they have been of the sterling and world monetary crisis, or would have a clue what to do about it.

Cash for Confession? Most definitely NOT. Indeed your own sources make it obviouse. What are we to think of you and your objectivity?

Your blog gives the misleading impression Sinatra paid for his last confession yet this is myth!

I quote:"THE story goes that Frank Sinatra asked John Paul II to hear his confession. The pope declined, despite Mr Sinatra’s promise to see him right. The story may have been made up, perhaps by Mr Sinatra’s own publicists; little that is reported about showbiz can be taken on trust."

Similarly, there is no suggestion of money for confession with James Murdoch.

Again I quote: "The Catholic Church has been criticised for accepting a six-figure donation from James Murdoch ahead of him being given a personal audience with Pope Benedict during last year's papal visit."

Dodo- listen to the word of God and be converted from your sinful catholic ways :

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color (official Vatican colors), and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (the Vatican is filthy rich), having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations (the Holocaust, inquisitions, etc.) and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY (very few people realize where the Catholic religion started), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (who seduce people into their damnable religion) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” —Revelation 17:4,5

Catholicism’s ill-gotten children profess to know Christ but do service to Satan by disregarding the commandments of God in order to keep the traditions of men which papists even themselves call "TRADITION." Why is she (the whore) called a mystery? The antichrist spirit of ancient pagan Babylon, though seemingly long fallen, lives in the rites and blasphemies of the Roman Catholic religion. Now that ancient Babylonian false religion lives today within the Catholic religion, disguised by Christian names. What a Satanic scam! The queen of heaven is now... Mary! Mystery Babylon lives, undetected by doomed millions across the world.

Much as I hold no brief for or sympathy with the Roman Catholic organisation (falsely called a 'church'), I really don't think these comments exist for people like Mr Reformer to use your erudite blog as a platform for unadorned anti-RC propaganda. Maybe it is time for the exercise of some moderator intervention, Cranny. What do you think?

Much has been said about Rupert Murdoch , mostly subtle and mostly from the left with a little hand rubbing included. Peter Oborne has done an excellent article reviewing his own time as a journalist and helps the public somewhat . A free press is somthing bandied about without much respect to what it is supposed to compliment. We now have the spectacle of the very same people who made parliament unfit for democrcay ,now saying they were afraid of what the press could do , suggesting they were the victims along with the deeply wronged people whose lives and phones have been privately rifled through for intense headlines .conspiracists showboating as victims , and now latent defenders of what the corruptions they oversaw ,is a little too much to stomach for me.I noted the demise of the pro public investagtive reporter some time ago , jouranlism had turned into celebrity gossip because the big corporations could do strange and powerful things to media that exposed somthing .Rupert Murdoch is a man who knows newspapers , he also gave his editors quite a bit of freedom, we should not forget that , editors have to back there journalists or things become conformist and the "free" is taken out of the free press. Yet it is a superficial media age we live in ,where some types of reporting may seem boring , which is an interesting question in itself .

Olly grender was quite sure that we wanted pluralistic media and I was left wondering what the plural of dumbed down pap was, and wether yet again somthing was being decided for us by a liberal/left elite in the vein of progressive speak as we are now just mentally incapacitated dumb animals.

The sheer ammount often junk in some years from now will perhaps lead to judge sitting asking if it was right to wire in human minds that need some sort of truth ,to a perpetually spinning diet of spiv dictatorship.I dont think we were made to function in this continual external mental soup ,it affects our intimate lives , souls perhaps , and yet no one can explain to me if this good or bad as it seems so normal now .

I have to say that I agree with Anabaptist on this one, it is not just the comment above, but there were a few left on the Eric Pickles thread which were a bit below the belt too and I have to say some-one writing that I'll 'go to hell' is a bit rich given that it's not their place to determine that.

Robust disputation should in no way be restricted. Does your moniker not speak to Anabaptist propaganda?Please, Your Grace; No censorship, even for the rude and excitable.Now I see Paul Twigg has chimed in. Getting a bit thinkinned aren't we?

Frank Sinatra famously offered an undisclosed sum for Pope John Paul II to hear his last confession, as though the Mafioso's sins were so unforgivably mortal and pervesely carnal that only the Vicar of Christ himself had the authority on earth to grant absolution.

I did not infer from this sentence that the RCC had accepted money from Sinatra. In fact I presumed quite the opposite. But what should strike the reader is that this kind of attitude is precisely consistent with the sacramentalism inherent in the RC view of justification. All one has to do is slip in that sacrament in at the last minute. Or perhaps wear a scapular. Or purchase an indulgance. Perhaps even a pre-emptory indulgance that pardons all futrue sins that will be committed in service of the church - as (say) was done with the Crusaders who sacked Beziers.

What need has a man to cling naked and destitute to the righteousness of Christ when he can avail himself of all these wonderful sacramental rituals?

Mr English Viking, your language, demeanour and opinions mark you out as a complete contradiction of the person and things you profess to believe and follow, and your foul-mouthed tirades expose the Christian gospel to justified scepticism from atheists on this blog. Presumably, 'self-righteous' means anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you and your shameful unchristian rantings.

If you had any perception or intelligence, you would have noticed that my plea for moderator intervention was not made on my own behalf but for the sake of someone with whom I disagree. But you, Mr EV, seem to know no other form of debate than crude insult. Prove me wrong if you can.

Mr Reformer's outpourings against Roman Catholicism had nothing to do with the subject under discussion. They were just a naked, typically-Prod, knee-jerk attack on Mr Dodo's beliefs.

No you did not dam me, because the person or person(s) posting did so under the name of "Reformer" and "John Ireland", in actual fact I had not suspected that it was you doing so, although it would appear that you are now suggesting you were said people? Really, as you are writing already under a monkier, I don't know why you went to all that trouble.

I am in fact in favour of free speech, but I think that on a Christian blog, one should be a little less offensive and slightly more constructive that saying some is, for example, a " self-righteous gob-shite".

In terms of my faith, that is a matter between myself & God and requires no justification to either you or Ian Cad or Len or Ernsty and all the other bloggers who seem to have extreme Fundamentalist Christian worldviews and who seem to flock to an Anglican blog as moths to a flame. I could not care less if you think I am 'wet' or not, whatever that phrase means.

Ian Cad- Paul Twigg will chime in if he wants to do so. I would not call the ravings of that person who calls himself "reformer" as being "robust disputation", but nothing more than a rant against something the poster does not like.

>>Rupert Murdoch’s knighthood, which was apparently bestowed after he donated $10m to help build a cathedral in Los Angeles<<

So what?

From Wikipedia "Rupert Murdoch was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.[3] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.[4]

Hardly the widow's mite! I'll leave those interested to do the maths.Unfortunately some in the church do little to dispel the notion that you can buy your way to heaven lest the lack of 'good works' might leave them a little short!

My Goodness Mr. Twigg! I dont think you would have joined in the Reformation.Luther would be far too vulgar for you. Knox was too outspoken. Wesley disturbed the crowd so much that he made them throw rocks at him. What you would have made of the Apostles only you can know.

I shall continue to post as I see fit, even if the Anti-Christs Anabaptist and Paul Twigg and Dodo the Dude protest! The gates of hell shall ye prevail against the Lord's Church!

Satan is definitely working in the Vatican and in Catholic organizations all across the world. Though most Catholics will deny worshipping Mary, the evidence says something very different! They bow down and literally pray in the name of "Mother Mary" to a graven statue of Mary. This is sinful idolatry! They are lying through their teeth. God makes CLEAR in His Word that He will NOT share His glory with another (that includes Mary).

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." —Isaiah 42:8

How could anyone be so foolish to actually bow down in prayer to a statue of Mary, yet at the same time deny that they are worshipping her? Talk about crazy! God clearly command us in the second of the Ten Commandments NOT to make unto ourselves ANY graven images.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" —Exodus 20:4

Do the Catholics need glasses? It says right there in black and white in Exodus 20:4 that we are NOT to make unto ourselves ANY likeness of anything that is in heaven!!! Mary is in Heaven. We are NOT to make any likeness of her according to Exodus 20:4. So what do you call a statue of mother Mary?It surely is a likeness of her, a graven image! Here's another shocker...

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them..." —Exodus 20:5

Ok, so then why does every Catholic BOW DOWN before a statue of Mary in their worship places? I'll tell you why... because they are practicing FALSE religion totally void of the truth of God. You can argue whether or not you are worshipping Mary as your bowing down to her; but one thing is for certain, God has commanded us in Exodus 20:5 NOT TO BOW DOWN to her. Even if your not worshipping Mary, you ARE SINNING if you bow down to her because the Bible strictly forbids it! As I write, millions of people all around the world are bowing down to Mary in violation of God's Word. Yes, Satanism is in the Vatican!

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." —Mark 7:7

"For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." —Mark 13:22

Mr. Reformer:Are you saying that Mary is in Heaven? If so you are swallowing one of the fundamental tenets of the papacy, namely the Assumption of Mary.Mary is dead. She is in the grave. To be awakened only when Christ returns in power and glory.

Mary would be in heaven if she believed in Jesus Christ, but she was only a normal sinful human like everyone else. She needed to be saved as well.

To everyone else :

Catholicism is a lie of the Devil, a prison-house of religion. If I didn't sincerely care about people, then I wouldn't take the time to WARN others. The Catholic religion is all a bunch of Satanic lies based upon traditions and dishonest manipulation and perversion of the Word of God. See a list of Catholic heresies.

I plead with you, obey the Gospel by acknowledging your guilt of sin for breaking God's Laws, turn to the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, trusting solely upon His work of redemption to wash away your sins, and by all means, forsake the hideous Mother of Harlots.

The Great Whore of the Catholic Church will take you to Hell with them if you're foolish enough to follow them. Luke 11:44, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them." I tell you, the Catholic Church is like an open grave, a trap just as Jesus warned, waiting for its next victim to fall into it. Please don't do it. Salvation is NOT found in a religion, but in a Person—the Lord Jesus Christ!

This is one of my key problems with the ultra fundamentalist Christian denominations- note that the reformer spends half a page railing against the catholic church, yet one, tiny, tiny sentence has Ian Chad arguing with him. No wonder these types of churches constantly split and become cults in all but name.

The thing is that this is supposed to be a blog of erudite and intelligent discussion, not a forum for crude sterotyping and ranting behaviour, how would you feel if I told you to "fuck off twat"? You'd say that was hypocritcal and UnChristian of me. I trust that this makes my point clear.

English Viking- I am Church of England in denomination, so from your world view yes I am 'wishy washy'. To others, though, I am nothing more than a ignorant 'godbot'. Depends on your perspective.

If the 'reformer' had any idea of the nature of evil and satan he would not go around using the term 'antichrist' on this blog as a casual personal insult. You might have theological or political differences, with me and the others you mention, but please NEVER EVER, EVER ,EVER CALL ME AN ANTI-CHRIST AGAIN!

No when I became a Christian I learned that there was a better way, some of you write about being "born again". Indeed, so the old sinful life is to be put away as we walk with Jesus Christ.

I do appreciate that sometimes in the heat of the moment it is difficult to exercise self-control.

As some of the fundamentalists like to go about quoting scripture at everyone, I suggest that they read this :

"The fruits of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control .Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other" (Galatians 5 vs 22-26).

Danjo- as an atheist I wouldn't expect you to understand exactly what a slur that is on a believer of Jesus Christ- but trust me it is not a nice thing to be called. Think of the worst anti-gay insult you have ever been called and you will get the picture.

Dreadnaught: "And while the Christians are biting lumps out of each other Islam is busily taking over redundant churches and reclaiming the world for Allah."

Only vaguely related but I've just watched that Life of Mohammed thing (the first episode) on iplayer. It's quite informative in a sort of visual Wikipedia sort of way but I laughed at Rageh's handling of the two controversies in the episode.

Danjo, I too watched the programme and had to crunch on ice-cubes for the sake of preserving my TV screen: talk about fairy la-la-land!

It will be interesting to see how or if he covers the violence of the 'revelations' in the Medina period or how Islam won the hearts and minds (or is that heads)of 'reverts' wherever they went thereafter.

Well we knew it was going to be a whitewash all along especially with a Muslim head of religious programming.

His Grace, being the person he is actually endorses everything that has been said against the catholic church. Papists can rot in hell. Which is why I won't delete any of the above comments- freedom of speech is my smokescreen for being a bigot.

Satan owns and controls the Catholic Church. Their demonic organization total rejects, denies and goes contrary to the plainest teachings of the Word of God that only by being BORN AGAIN can a man enter into the kingdom of God. That is what Jesus taught (John 3:1-7). Tragically, one billion fools today are following the madness of the Catholic highway to Hell . . .

Archbishop Cranmer said... "... one also needs a thick skin around here if one is an Anglican, and even more if one is Protestant."

I've come to understand there are Protestants and there are Protestants! Apart from varying degrees of antipathy towards Rome, ranging from the mild to the extreme, I'm not sure what Anglican and Protestant (or Anglican and Reformed) shares with the more fundamental Protestants posting here.

Presumably the 'born again' evangelical extremists are as hostile to the Anglican community with its priests, sacraments and rituals as they are to Roman Catholicism. They constantly attack individual representatives of the Anglican Church but not its beliefs and practices. Why is this? Afraid of the response to going public?

I understand Anglicanism is a broad Church but how broad? And what really unites 'Protestants'?

The other reason why I would not call myself a fundamentalist is that a fundamentalist actually moves further and further from the principles of the beliefs that they apparently hold most dear.

I would also suggest that understanding the paradox of fundamentalism (of any creed) is also a crucial way to understand some of what happens in the world.

The paradox is that the more a fundamentalist attempts to adhere to his/her belief the further they actually get from that belief. For example :

1. Marxism/Socialism- if one reads Marx, the socialist dream world seems like a paradise, an attempt to build a better world, but which when put into practice becomes a total distort of the origional utopian dream in which people are sent to salt mines and live in utter poverty and misery. I cannot think of one 'pure' socialist country that has existed ever that I would want to live in, despite the claim that one would be living in would be a near perfect society .

2. Christinaity- take one of the 10 commandments 'you shall not murder', a line which is often taken by fundamentalist christians (both Protestant and Catholic) to be a justification for being anti-abortion. Some take this to mean in any circumstances (the fundamentalist viewpoint). However the fundamentalist activists are quite prepared to murder the doctors who perform abortion. Thus a paradox- a group of people who believe that murder is wrong, yet are willing to do the same to prevent murder.

Dodo, by the same token I also discovered that there are Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics- just as in the Anglican Church there are moderates, traditionalists and fundamentalists. I remember once being shouted at by a fundamentalist catholic that they only way to heaven is via the church and being a catholic- that the Anglican Church was not a 'proper church' and a lot of gloating about our apparent divisions.

So in all fairness there is an equal amount of antipathy by some on the roman catholic spectrum towards non-catholic churches.

Strange really, given that I have gone to great lengths today to argue about the tone and language used in the theological discussions on this subject from those on the protestant side.

Dreadnaught: "It will be interesting to see how or if he covers the violence of the 'revelations' in the Medina period or how Islam won the hearts and minds (or is that heads)of 'reverts' wherever they went thereafter."

I'm looking forward to episode 2 now. That thing about Rushdie ... it was claimed that UK muslims suddenly realised that they were part of the worldwide Ummah (I paraphrase) because of that. I need to watch that bit again I think but it seemed to me that it was saying if it wasn't for Rushdie then muslims as a group in the UK wouldn't be as stroppy and self-aware as they are often portrayed. I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Throwing money at the church to pay for ones sin may be profitable for the Church(the Church which must not be named as it offends Mr Anabaptist, but is universal, and not adverse to acquiring large sums of cash to ease anyone`s conscience) but is a totally useless endeavour.Jesus Christ paid for the sin of humanity through the Cross of Calvary, God will accept no other payment.Catho- phobia seems to be running a little rampant at the moment not without good cause though.Poor old Dodo has shot himself in the foot so many times I wonder he can still stand up.During the war a plan was made by the allies to rid themselves of Hitler but as he was making such a hash of running the war they decided to leave him to it as he was more of a danger to them as he was to us.Lesson to be learned Mr Dodo?

1. The Authority of the Bible as the revelation of God about his world and his plans for it.

2. The belief that only through faith in Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection can one get to heaven and God. A place is heaven is not purchased with good deeds, gold or silver (or a Murdock donation) but through the blood of Jesus Christ.

3.That one day Jesus Christ will return again and judge the living and the dead.

4. That it is the mission of the Church to attempt to spread the gospel or good news to every corner of the earth.

5. The Holy Spirit is there to guide and command the above.

There are differences surrounding these 3 areas (e.g. Church organisation, how, when, whomn re the second coming, as we have seen on the other thread, how literally do you take the Bible) but personally I think that these are the glues of Christian faith.

Paul I don't think a Catholic would argue against these as basic truths.

As you probably know we would give greater emphasis to points (4) and (5), with more weight to tradition and reason in understanding the bible, and also stress the authority of the Church and the Pope.

Perhaps only because he dropped the word 'alone' in point 2. The (Infallible) Canons of the Council of Trent must be beat against these points to come to a proper understanding of the differences involved.

if it wasn't for Rushdie then muslims as a group in the UK wouldn't be as stroppy...

That's what they said; then tried to posit and that it was a spontaneous mass knee jerk reaction. Mass offence was sustained even though hardly any of them looked as though they could read English, let alone get to understand Rushdie's concept.

If you look at it "he" did not 'drop' the word 'alone' in point 2 because "he" didn't write it there in the first place, but if it makes you happier....

PS- it seems that the difference between Anglican/other Protestants is I guess this is it- debating over 1 word from 2 paragraphs of writing and finding fault with it to the point of being at odds with the greater whole.

I was not intending to be obscure, so let me be clear. The difference between "faith in Christ" and "faith in Christ alone" is the difference between a false gospel and the true Gospel. A RC asserts that a man is saved by Faith plus "something." That's why Dodo could give assent to your list. It was ambiguous on the critical difference between Protestant and Catholic - that being the anathemas of the Gospel found in the Canons of the Council of Trent.

Carl, you are welcome to post to me on a first name basis, to be fair I did not intend to be ambiguous about this and to my mind the addition of 'alone' goes without saying and I am 100% comfortable with this addition. Dodo can of course speak for himself on the matter.

Although I would not automatically suggest that 'faith in christ' and 'faith in christ alone' leads to a choice of a 'false gospel' and the 'true gospel'. It is, as you point that, only when you add a whole sentence (rather than an omission of 1 word) that it becomes a false doctrine -i.e. 'the something else'.

However, I do agree nuances cause strive being open to different understandings. Hence my acceptance of Catholic Church authority bestowed, I believe, by Christ on the Apostles with His promise of success.

Is 'alone' really what is meant by 'sola fide' or is this one part of a more complex whole? Given the opportunity to know Jesus and the Good News, to then refuse the gift of faith and to deny Him entry into your heart, would be to refuse salvation. No problem with this.

Faith, according to Catholicism, needs building and strengthening and the right circumstances to flourish.

Attending Mass and receiving the sacraments fortifies us. Acts of giving show our love of our neighbour and serve as an example to others. A Christian just helps those in need - for Christ's sake!

Similarly, we believe, accepting the Doctrines and following the teachings of the Catholic Church helps us to avoid error that can undermine and destroy faith.

I would just like to say when the unknown, uknowns, clash with the plain truths which are common knowledge, I will be borrowing a hijab, in order to prevent the shit getting in my teeth when it hits the fan.

Forget ticket touts, forget title touts.

Grab your Hijabs why you can, because this shower of shits will need them, to escape conviction.

I have pre-ordered a double load of Hijabs, which will be purveying at thrice the normal cost, any political or media folk interested?

It may be your only way of escaping notice!

Capitalism with a small c :-D

All proceeds will go to those Brits dispossessed of their ancestral homelands and the rebuilding of a Cottage industry.

Danjo may apply for the cottage industry, but is forewarned, your inability to comprehend my meaning may warant you sharing a public convenience with Dreadnaught.

It is very obvious, and noone needs telling, that Catholics (Roman or other) adhere more or less to certain credal observances and others do not.

It is difficult to see why anyone would, seriously and in good faith, imagine that this blogsite is for denouncing others due to credal differences.

But the course of discussion can benefit from mention of such points of difference as mentioned at 23:01 (Mr carl jacobs), about "the critical difference between Protestant and Catholic - that being the anathemas of the Gospel found in the Canons of the Council of Trent".

I am quite sure that the christian faith is somthing no one person can comprehend in its entiritey ,hence the need for communion and the peace.

I see us as sort of living parts of gods message , we have both our own salvation and that of others to consider.

Fundamentalist can have different contextual meanings , if one looks at how the methodists came about ,you might consider it a fundamentalist movement.

How the protestant and roman catholic positions may come together is important , I do not believe we have that much to fall out over ,when our culture is being handed over to the godless. Look at us , same bible , same key understanding of jesus , and we seem so limited in trying to stop our culture deteriorating into little more than a nice warm feeling at certain times of the year.

It is a living work , full of challenges , discipline , and seeking the mysteries of the faith and gods love.

By all means good theology , meaningful services , prayer for others and ourselves redemption and salvation .

We only know god by spending time with him , no head of either church , has yet had the power to bridge all humanities errors in a mass conversion event ,in that sense both churches are still seeking the lord , before his invisble presence .

From the Canons on Justification of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

Bred: "Danjo may apply for the cottage industry, but is forewarned, your inability to comprehend my meaning may warant you sharing a public convenience with Dreadnaught."

Is preferring the literal to the lateral an inability or a sideways slant? Trying to mix DAN up might seem like an act of gene-ius but the bone bluedog gnawed on recently suggests your focus on a certain topic might actually have been bred in the closet even if it looks like a dog's dinner to most here. Are you at a critical crossroad rather than a cryptic crossword? Not a cross word, you understand. You know, it's been said before! Hope that is clear. ;)

These internecine fights are curious things. Standing on the outside, I can see the benefits of having a Magisterium and propagating a single interpretation developed over many hundreds of years of careful and iterative study. Yet any mistake early on will have been compounded and built upon so that the deviation later on could be huge.

Compare that with the free-format, individualistic attempts to interpret and understand the often cryptic meanings in the bible, starting afresh and from probably damaged or culturally loaded personalities, and it's going to end up looking like an incoherent mess. Worse, we end up with cults, end-of-worlders, and messianic nutters in some cases.

Even the middle way suffers from the dissatisfaction of the various groups within it but at least it has an umbrella understanding I suppose. Of course, we also end up with political power struggles between those groups which never looks good from the outside.

As I said when I first came here, I simply can't understand how or why a Holy Spirit can't make itself clear. This is the Lord of All Creation, apparently sustaining the entire universe moment by moment as an act of will and allegedly our minds are part of the environment in which it exists in its special non-contingent-existing sort of way.

Danjo,'As I said when I first came here, I simply can't understand how or why a Holy Spirit can't make itself clear.'

First point the Holy Spirit is not an 'it' but a 'He'.The Holy Spirit is exactly the same Spirit as Christ.So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.(1 Corinthians 15:45)Christ shares His Spirit with born again believers, His Spirit becomes my Spirit.This is why it is essential to be born again as Christ instructed.Now religion instructs a man as to how to behave and this religious person tries to conform his behaviour to try and reproduce the behaviour that only Christ can produce.The Spirit of the religious, unredeemed, man remains unchanged and is actually opposed to Christ because through pride this man feels(although he will never say it) that he is as good as Christ.This is the difference between those who hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and those who resist it.This is exactly the problem Jesus had with the (religious) Pharisees because Jesus was born of the Spirit of God and they were not.

Len: "This is the difference between those who hear the voice of the Holy Spirit and those who resist it."

Did you watch Rageh's programme? Mohammed had a revelation akin to those of the Old Testament prophets. Not a full-of-joy one but a painful one like Jeremiah and he too was apparently rather reluctant to receive it. Why shouldn't we believe that claim?

You can (and do) claim Catholics are not true Christians, Catholics can (and do) claim you are not a true Christian. Muslims claim you all are not on message. And Satan is behind all of it, except the particular one the person blaming Satan holds.

Danjo,I can only speak through my own experience .I did watch Ragehs programme and thought it skirted around vital issues and produced a 'Mohammed' none who followed him would have recognised.Also the background of Mohammed and how he came to his'belief system' and his contact with Judaism and pagan Christianity was 'glossed over'.Jewish scribes were alleged to have sold him made up 'bible stories' and these are found in the Koran, no mention of this though!.

I have said in past posts I believe some Catholics are genuine Christians not because of Catholicism but despite it.God will work with anyone who responds to Him but there are many obstacles to Him in religion especially Catholicism and Islam.

The condition Jesus said you MUST comply with is to be born again.This is entry level Christianity.

The 'Jesus' in Islam is not the Jesus of the Bible at all be a created being.Islam has so many errors in it( derived from false Christianity and Judaism mixed with pagan beliefs) that any serious searches will easily expose this.

What it basically comes down to is that if you are genuinely seeking the God of the Bible he will make Himself known to you.Come close to God, and God will come close to you.This is a 'heart thing 'not a 'head thing'.

"Explain your theories then Danjo, do you believe homosexual tendancies to be latent in all folk."

Not at all, quite the opposite. I think the people who believe we somehow recruit are completely daft.

Marie and I have argued over this a couple of months ago when she thought the people around her were 'turning gay' simply to be fashionable. I'm afraid we still snigger over that one. I expect that little gem came from the BNP. When Marie pops in, I think the average IQ of both here and the BNP mailing list goes down about 30 notches. :)

An earlier generation could have supposed such a usage to be intended to resonate with "scapegoat" or the Christian doctrine of "redemption".

But today it is more likely to be taken as an allusion to Ian McEwan's novel "Atonement" (2001). For those, like this commenter, who have not read it, or seen the film version (2007), this excerpt from Wikipedia explains:

"On a fateful day, a young girl (who aspires to be a writer) makes a terrible mistake that has life-changing effects for many people. Consequently, she lives seeking atonement—which leads to an exploration on the nature of writing."

Wikipedia also mentions that an opera is to be written based on the novel:music, Michael Berkeley, libretto Craig Raine. "It is hoped to produce the opera in the US, UK and Germany in 2013."

If the Murdoch Affair is still running then, it may be that the curtain will have come down for the above-named resigners.

(In the Shorter OED the first of the definitions of atonement in the Shorter OED: "Unity of feeling; harmony, concord, agreement".)

Nothing at Trent anathemising the Gospels. It anathemised what it regarded as false understandings of the Gospel.

Read alongside the other teachings of the Council of Trent, the ones referred to seek to show salvation reqires cooperation.

I agree justification was declared to be offered upon the basis of faith and good works as opposed to the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone', and faith was treated as a progressive work. The idea of man being utterly passive under the influence of grace was also rejected.

However, to fully understand this position requires a full reading of all the final documents. The Council saw its position as entirely consistent with the Gospel message and cited Scripture.

MrJ is sincerely grateful to Mr Dodo the Dude for so clear an epitome of the possibility of error which induced the Papal party to separate from communion with others, and to Mr carl jacobs for his comment (and citation of certain anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent) which led to it.

I simply quoted the canons without comment - canons to which all Catholics must submit on penalty of damnation. But then, you have admirably highlighted the essential differences in any case when you wrote...

I agree justification was declared to be offered upon the basis of faith and good works as opposed to the Protestant doctrine of 'faith alone'

You now admit to the truth of my original comment when I said you could only give assent to Paul Twigg's list because it did not contain the word 'alone' after the word 'Faith.' The debate between Protestant and Catholic is not about the necessity of faith. It is about the sufficiency of faith.

When I was younger, a lot younger, my Mother used to give me money to put in the collection plate at church.Once having missed the collection plate I put the money in a box at the back of the church which was marked'for the vicars discretion'but in my youthful ignorance when asked by my mother where I had put the money I replied 'I put it in a box for the vicars indiscretions ' might have been almost prophetic!.

My point was to dismiss your suggestion that Trent somehow anathematised the Gospels which you know to be nonsense.

The Council arrived at a different theological position to Protestants and reaffirmed it's constant teaching. I've outlined this and it's all based on Scripture, reason and tradition.

Most certainly Catholics have taken from Scripture a more complex understanding of the relationship between faith and works and the role of developing grace, than the belief that 'faith alone' justifies and leads to salvation.

MrJ

Maybe I misread you but I think you obtain a perverse pleasure from misrepresenting others and being provocative. If you've nothing clear, honest and helpful to contribute, what's the point?

The "Papal party" i.e the Catholic Church of 1600 years standing, did not "separate from communion" with others. It declared its position and a wide range of Protestant sects, who failed to agree even amongst themselves, seen as heretical by the Church, seperated themselves from Her. You will also know the Catholic Church believes itself free from the "possibility of error" given the commission it was given by Jesus and the protection afforded it by the Holy Spirit.

My point was to dismiss your suggestion that Trent somehow anathematised the Gospels which you know to be nonsense.

Trent didn't anathematize the Gospels - as in the first four books of the New Testament. It anathematized the Gospel - as in the central message of the Christian Faith. The content of the Gospel is knowable and known. That is what Trent attacks.

I understand that there is no agreement between Protestant and Catholic over the definition of the Gospel. I intended only to emphasize the essential nature of the disagreement. I long for the day when Rome will repudiate Trent, and the functional deification of Mary, and the arrogance of the Papacy, and that vaporous mist of Gnosis called Sacred Tradition, and all the other errors the encrust her like carbuncles. Until that happens, we should not pretend that we are separated brothers arguing over adiaphora. The definition of the Gospel is not adiaphora.

Though long overdue, R Murdoch is getting his comeuppance for interfering in UK politics. IIRC his newspapers had a role in the defeat of Conservatives at the hands of Tony Blair. I am not saying that newspapers cannot be partisan - the UK press is much more honest in its biases when compared to the supposedly neutral US press - no over what I refer to is the sudden turnaround of the Murdoch papers, cutting off the Conservatives' legs at a crucial time, the memory of which is quite hazy now. For a certainty the leftists at the BBC are having a laugh, but their day will soon come as the viewers notice that their productions are loaded with homosexuals and perverts.

MrJ notes the admission at 15:57 about misreading, immediately followed by a calumny too obvious to merit further rebuttal; and gratefully acknowledges that Mr carl jacobs at 16:25 (mentioning "The definition of the Gospel is not adiaphora") has sustained his (cj's) comments at 22:30 and 23:01.

Mr JSomeone really should get you a wooden spoon for Christmas although you do quite well without one.

CarlWe disagree but is it necessary to be so offensive and abusive towards the faith of Rome Catholics?

And so hostile towards attempts at reconciliation too! You're not another fundamentalist 'born again' evangelical are you? Mind you, until 'Protestants' agree what is and what is not adiaphora what hope is there for unity?

Will you be a 'sheep' or a 'goat' when standing before Christ?

" ... and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."

We disagree but is it necessary to be so offensive and abusive towards the faith of Rome Catholics?

How is it offensive and abusive to speak the truth? Is it abusive to call Sacred Tradition 'gnosis?' Then define for me its content and provenance. Is it abusive to refer to the functional deification of Mary? Then explain this.

O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.

http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/perpet3.htm

How can I be reconciled to Rome when this stands in my way? What reconciliation is even possible when divine attributes are clearly assigned to a creature?

You're not another fundamentalist 'born again' evangelical are you?

You would have to define what you mean by 'fundamentalist' before I could answer. Being 'born again' is a simple fact of the Christian Life. As for 'evangelical,' the definition of the word has been blurred. I call myself a Reformed Protestant.

Oswin: "DanJo, I think you'll find a fair few so-called ''homophobes'' in the lists of 'MENSA' too. I just thought I'd bring that to the table. :o)"

Ah, I was actually talking about BNP supporters being thick rather than homophobic people in general. Take a look at the policies area of the BNP website if you want a good laugh, it's like a group activity in GCSE politics by bored students.

I've been tempted for ages to mock up a news story to send to them about a new study showing that 50% of the population are below average intelligence because of liberals getting involved in the education system and that aptitude in maths in particular has suffered. I bet it'd fly. :)

(20:21) "Is it abusive to call Sacred Tradition 'gnosis?' Then define for me its content and provenance."

That, to my mind, is a question well put, but may I ask whether in the remarks above-quoted there is an implicit distinction between "gnosis" and "gnosticism", having regard to the article on "Gnosticism " in the online Catholic Encyclopedia "New Advent", which reads in part:

"Gnosticism: The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.

"A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be: A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

"However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour lost.

"The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past."

A few followers of Christ have attacked the Papish Church for the unchristian anti-christ that it is . But also the Anglican Church is equally the anti-christ & therfore the likes of Paul Twigg, Ernsty& Tiddles, English Viking and the other so called christians shall rot in everlasting hell! ;

Their own Official Anglican Statement of Faith condemns them! According to the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church of Canada from The Book of Common Prayer, 1959, pg. 698-714...

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (The 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church of Canada from The Book of Common Prayer, 1959, pg. 698-714).

Heresy! Damnable heresy! They state above, "...they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin..." There is NOT one verse in the entire Bible that requires a person to be baptized to have their sins forgiven. When Jesus said to the man sick of palsy in Mark 2:5, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee," He didn't tell the man to get baptized. Jesus forgave and healed that sick man on the spot, without baptism! How foolish are those unscrupulous Bible teachers who fail to study the Word of God, to understand it's true meaning. Many people fail to understand Acts 2:38. If you'd like to know much more about Biblical baptism, then I highly recommend A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF BAPTISM, by Pastor Max D. Younce, Th.D.

Baptismal regeneration is of the Devil, i.e., the heresy that a person must be baptized to go to Heaven. Here is another helpful article, that I think really makes an excellent point concerning baptism. It is so simple folks. No one in the Old Testament was ever required to be baptized; but rather, we read in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham "believed God" and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:5 plainly states, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." What is there not to understand? Listen my friend, you'd better forget, and forsake, the 39 articles of the Anglican faith, and rather obey the Word of God! In fact, there is a Scripture which tells us exactly that in Romans 3:4, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..." Men are liars, who tell you that you must be baptized in order to be saved. The entire purpose of 1st John being written, according to 1st John 5:13, was so that we could KNOW that we have eternal life ... "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." Carefully notice--NO MENTION is ever made of being baptized. In fact, the words "baptize," "baptism," or "baptized" is NOT mentioned in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John. If baptism were necessary for salvation, surely the Apostle John would have mentioned it.

Just as the heretic Martin Luther, the Anglican Church teaches and rests upon the damnable demonic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. When Jesus witnessed the Gospel to Nicodemus in John Chapter 3, He never mentioned baptism. When Jesus witnessed the Gospel to the Samaritan woman, at the well, in John Chapter 4, He never mentioned baptism. In Acts 16, when a Roman prison-guard fell at Paul's feet and asked, "What must I do to be saved," Paul responded ... "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Again, no mention was made of being baptized. How ridiculous is the notion, that God would deny someone access into Heaven, simply because they failed to perform some self-righteousness religious act. Salvation is of the heart, not by religious ceremonialism. Only by believing upon Jesus Christ, because of the precious blood which He shed for us, can we be saved. Jesus said He is the Door into Heaven (John 10:9). Salvation is as simple as walking through a Door, and that Door is Jesus. Simply trust Him now, to forgive all your sins, believing upon Him as your personal Savior.

I would finally conclude that the salvation of jesus christ is not fit for those like danjo, paul twigg, anabaptist and the other homosexuals who go onto this blog. they must repent or be thrown into the lake of fire. although for some there is no hope -jesus didn't come to save the niggers or the other inferior races of the earth, but for the supreme ayran race!This is Biblically true, so don't get fooled by the Anglican and papist heresies or untruths as Dodo, Paul Twigg, Anabaptist, Danjo, Bred In The Bone, English Vikng, Carl Jacobs and the other shits who think they know Christ!

Right, this is too much. I'm trying to get some sleep, yet the old blackberry is "ping, ping, ping" about post from His Grace's good blog- being called the 'antichrist' is bad enough, but the posts here degenerating into the worst kinds of nonesense.

when I foolishly decided to read some of them, I almost had a mini stroke. This "Christian Bible" fella is clearly and I do not say it lightly, the archtype anti christ, who is to my mind set on some other agenda other than that of our loving Gospel of the Loving Lord Jesus.

I can say without hesitation that I will not be burning in the lake of fire upon my death because I believe and trust in Jesus Christ (alone) to be my advocate when the judgement comes; my faith and hope is in the cruxified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.

As for the bit about 'inferior races' what a load (and English Viking will like me here) of utter shit. Jesus Christ was FOR ALL NATIONS AND ALL RACES! Got THAT TRUTH? I will even supply you with the Bible verses to prove it, but I remember Jesus saying "my temple is a place of prayer for ALL NATIONS".

I could go on, but I need to get some sleep. All I can say is that this blog is under Satanic attack and as God put his hedge of protection around Job, so too must us Christians pray than God will do the same with the 'Cranmer blog'.

Call me a 'fundy' but , you can all stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

The special status afforded Mary is open to misunderstanding. Idolatory is an unsubstantiated charge.

If, as you say, you understand Roman Catholicism you will appreciate the reasons for this special status, its biblical basis, and why she is seen as so influential as an intercessor on our behalf with Christ. There is no deification of her.

As I said earlier Catholics are not obliged to pray to Mary. Doctrines we are required to assent to are her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and Assumption into Heaven.

2. The Theologically Correct Response. The Lord Jesus was a Jew. God did not establish His Covenant with Siegfried but with Abraham.

3. The Typical American Response. America is a nation of immigrants, and so we have a curious custom that is (I suspect) almost unknown in the rest of the World. If you ask an American his nationality, he will tell you the nationality of his immigrant ancestors. We all know it, and we can generally produce percentages. For example, I am 50% German, a quarter Swede, with the rest mostly a mix of Irish and French Huguenot. But there is truth in your charge. One of my Swedish ancestors married a Spanish Moorish Jewish woman. Like I care.

Blimey what`s been going on here, turn your back for one minute and all hell breaks loose (literally).

Jesus said His disciples would be recognised by their love for one another.The Royal Law is to firstly love God and then your neighbour as yourself.

Their seem to be some who are recognised not by their love but by their hate for others and they call themselves Christian but their actions deny Christianity.

Error is to addressed and corrected using the Bible as a yardstick 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,'(2Timothy 3;16)And if people can show me I am following wrong doctrine I will amend an bring it into line with scripture.It makes me very sad to see wolves coming in to tear up the flock as evidenced by some of the remarks here.Some of the discussions do get heated here but I would like to distance myself from some of the more outrageous remarks made by 'christians'.

Jesus`s message was one of love for Humanity and He reached out to the lost, the suffering, and the misguided,He died to save sinners and condemned no-one except the religious Pharisees.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)